SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ROOM FOR THE RIVER: SELF-ORGANISING CITIZENS DON’T ALWAYS KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE Jurian Edelenbos*

This article discusses two projects from the Room for the River programme, namely the Overdiepse Polder and the Dike Relocation at Lent. A comparison is made between the two projects in order to learn lessons regarding the worthwhile involvement of citizens (residents, farmers) in the development and implementation of the Room for the River measures. This is done from the perspective of societal self-organisation, in other words, the capacity to take the initiative with respect to the development and the implementation of plans for complex projects.

This article first positions the general notion of and terms). This means that the level of participation public participation. This is followed by assessing can vary from simply informing citizens, through to two projects, structured by a number or recurring ambitious levels of participation, in such cases the questions. The discussion is based on a number of citizens help make decisions and assist in formulating core publications.1 Finally we reflect on the cases policy.4 A feature of the first two types of participation with regard to successful societal self-organisation is that they are initiated, conditioned and organised by in water governance projects. How is it possible that the government. This is different from the third type the resident’s initiative for the Overdiepse Polder was of participation, called: societal self-organisation. Here recently awarded the Water Innovation Prize for 2012 the initiative is taken by the citizens who demonstrate (category for interest group and private initiatives) and self-organisation initiating planning and presenting the initiative for Lent has basically fallen into obscurity? ideas. Typical for self-organisation is that the initiatives are started voluntarily by one or more citizens for the benefit of others or for society in general.5 Examples Societal self-organisation of such initiatives include: citizen budgets, green space For over 40 years now attempts have been made in the management by citizens, and the Burgernet [citizen’s Netherlands to encourage citizen participation in the network] (security). All three types of participation decision-making processes specifically concerning the play important roles nowadays, and in practice they areas of spatial development, water and infrastructure.2 alternate. Nowadays, in practice there are at least three different Attention for the third type of participation, societal types of participation.3 The first one concerns the legal self-organisation, has risen over the past years. The rights of citizens with respect to participation: citizens idea of societal self-organisation connects closely to the have the opportunity to react to a (proposed) decision. quest towards citizens to take on more responsibility, The second one is known as interactive policymaking, and to lay less responsibility at the feet of government. where at the initiative of the government, citizens are The line taken by the previous Rutte government given the opportunity to become actively involved in (motto: ‘Freedom and responsibility’) is being policy preparation, creation and implementation, albeit continued by the current Rutte II government. The often from a clearly defined framework (preconditions idea of citizens taking more individual responsibility,

* Jurian Edelenbos is hoogleraar Erasmus University , Public Administration Department, Governance of Complex Systems research group.

32 – WATER GOVERNANCE – 02/2013 © Baltzer Science Publishers SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ROOM FOR THE RIVER

however, is not only finding increasing response from something really had to be done with the bottleneck. government, but also from the citizens themselves. When considering the latest measures at the end This development is reinforced by the financial of the 1990’s, an important change in the way of crisis and the reducing capacity of government to thinking about water security took place. Instead of organise and pay for public services. Governments improving the dike, the emphasis would be put on also seek other ways of making citizens take on river widening. In 2000 the secretary of state gave more responsibility. Examples of this development the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and can be observed in healthcare (e.g. informal care), Water Management instructions to investigate the sustainable energy (e.g. local energy companies) possibilities for relocating the dike at Lent. This and urban developments (e.g. joint project signalled the start of the project, and from that date commissioning). But self-organisation is mainly the name ‘Dike Relocation Lent’ was used even before visible in the areas of spatial development and water the Room for the River programme officially started. management. Research into creating room for rivers A quick-scan was implemented. It appeared from the shows that local stakeholders develop their own plans scan that in view of the current standards, measures via self-organisation in order to introduce changes to had to be taken at the bottleneck. The proposed government plans. Specific examples of this include measure was to lay a green river. The river could Noordwaard, Overdiepse Polder and Dike Relocation be laid according to three alternatives: above the at Lent.6 residential area, through the centre of the residential Societal self-organisation does not develop in a area, or in the southern part of the residential area. vacuum. It tends to develop within a generally However, the first two alternatives were not possible busy institutional landscape where public issues are owing to the high risks associated with flooding; the to a large extent appointed to in formal political third alternative, therefore, running to the south of authorities (in the state or state-related organisations). the residential area was selected. In the same period Little is actually known about how exchanges the Brokx commission got involved by carrying out between societal self-organisation and administrative a survey for the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public and political institutions develop, or what constitutes Works and Water Management that looked at the a stimulating context for the blossoming and viability third option. According to the plans at that time, part of societal self-organisation.7 of the village of Lent would have to be demolished.

OVERDIEPSE POLDER The Overdiepse Polder is Further examination of two self- approximately 550 ha (excluding the river washland organisation projects in Room for the River areas) located in the province of and In order to obtain a better understanding of self- surrounded by the Bergse Maas and the organisation within the context of area developments rivers. The polder is in an area that belongs to two and water management, this section discusses the Dike municipal authorities: Waalwijk and . Relocation at Lent and the Overdiepse Polder projects Until 1960 this area was regularly flooded in the from this perspective. The following questions are winter period. But after the Dam was retained as the structure: finished in 1971 the regular inundation of the area came to an end. This resulted in the area becoming How did the project get started? suitable for agricultural purposes. Seventeen farmers settled in this new land, each one being allocated When did the citizens enter the picture and how did between 25 and 40 hectares. The total population self-organisation get started? of the area is around 95 people. One could say that it has become a interconnected community; there is What was the role of the citizens in the self- intens social contact between the famers who help organisation? each other in times of crisis.8 Because it appeared to be a suitable location with What was the effect of self-organisation? respect to the River Maas, the existing water storage function, as well as because of the limited number of people living there, the polder area was referred to as a ‘search location’ within the framework of the How did the project get started? ‘Room for the River’ programme. In the Integrale Verkenning Benedenrivieren (1998) [integrated survey of tidal rivers] the Overdiepse Polder was LENT Since the 1950’s a dike reinforcement named as a retention area. This study was carried programme has existed for the bottleneck at Lent. out by a relatively closed group and also involved However the programme never properly started the ZLTO [Southern Agricultural and Horticultural because there was no sense of urgency attached to Organization] and the water board. The area players it. Although the high water levels in 1993 and 1995 from the Overdiepse Polder were not involved at this did bring about change, and people realised that stage.

WATER GOVERNANCE – 02/2013 – 33 SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ROOM FOR THE RIVER

Plan Brokx Lentse Warande

Plan Brokx Lentse Warande

Measures: Measures: - Relocating river dike 350 metres inland - Excavating floodplain at ground level - Excavating a second channel - Reserves for any dike relocation

Consequences: Consequences: - Meets the normative discharge of 18,000 m3/s - No houses demolished - Demolition of 50 houses in Lent - Meets the standard of 16.000 m3/s, for 18,000 m3/s extra measures are needed

Illustration 1. Plan Brokx versus Lentse Warande9

relocation, was no longer in opposing because it was When did the citizens enter the picture given assurances with regard to the Waalsprong new and how did self-organisation get started? housing development, and generous compensation was offered, and money would also be provided by central government for a second bridge. Simultaneously a LENT Because of the dissatisfaction with progress being second administrative agreement was signed between made regarding creating a plan for the dike relocation, Transport, Public Works and Water Management and the residents of Lent set up the Lent Federation that the municipal authority of Nijmegen in which it was included various resident groups who were already agreed that central government would contribute €90 active in the village. The Lent Federation includes the million for the second bridge. Flotust association, the Veur-Lent residents group, the GEWA foundation (victims of moving the River OVERDIEPSE POLDER In 1999 the area players accepted dike) and the Lent village council. The aim of the plans for the Overdiepse Polder as a retention the federation was to organise an opposing force by area and initially especially the farmers perceived the developing a comprehensive alternative. Therefore development plans as a threat and they very quickly during the second half of 2000, two plans were took legal steps to hold them back. The whole area was developed parallel to each other, one by the Brokx gripped by a sense of fear of the government that was commission and the other by the Lent Federation. The much greater than their fear of water.10 two plans, namely ‘Plan Brokx’ and ‘Lentse Warande’, During a presentation of the plans by the province were ready by the end of that year. Figure 1 gives an of North Brabant, two area actors who were lobbying, overview of the proposed high water level measures. approached Jan Boelhouwer the provincial executive The impacts of the Brokx plan were made public in member to demand direct involvement in the 2001 and on 22 April 2002 the administrative parties preparation of the plans. From then on scope was given formally agreed the plans by signing the administrative for participation by representatives of the Overdiepse agreement. All parties accepted the signing of the Polder area. The residents of the area came together agreement for the Brokx plan. Central government, the in the Vereniging Belangengroep [lobby group water board and the province were all convinced that association] Overdiepse Polder, and decided early on the Brokx plan was necessary for ensuring future safety. that the defensive strategy of delaying the decision- The municipal authority, the initial opponent of dike making process would no longer work (because the

34 – WATER GOVERNANCE – 02/2013 SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ROOM FOR THE RIVER

plan was coming anyway) and adopted the strategy of the advisory group because they wanted to actively developing their own, alternative plan. discuss the plans and also the procedures for this had to The project was designated as a so called mirror be gone through. Thereafter it was decided to include project, meaning that administrative innovation would the Lentse Warande as a fully fledged alternative within become a special theme while the project was being the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure. developed. The administrative innovation included Naturally this was to the great satisfaction of the an experiment in which government departments residents. worked closely with the residents of the area. The Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and OVERDIEPSE POLDER The Overdiepse Polder residents Water Management decided to take a step back association came up with an alternative ‘terp plan’ at from the project and transferred the management their own initiative and in liaison with the ZLTO. The to the province of North Brabant. However, it plan was received positively in the Bezinningsgroep took 16 months (July 2001 until October 2002) Water [water appraisal group] and matched the status before the process was finally called a mirror and of front runner that had been given to the project demonstration project. Before the experiment was in the meantime within the Room for the River finally implemented, various official and administrative programme. This status (the Noordwaard project also hurdles had to be overcome, especially with the received it) meant that the parties involved (government Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and departments and societal groups) got preference to Water Management. Eventually the perseverance of create rapid clarity and did not have to wait for formal provincial executive member Boelhouwer played an decision-making in 2006 within the framework of the important role in getting the experiment afloat. national PKB procedure. The ‘terps plan’ proposed a water level reduction of 30 centimetres. Moreover, the plan had to lead to the structural enhancement of agriculture. The original What was the role of the citizens plan included eight to ten ‘terps’ (mounds) meaning in the projects? that a number of farms would have to disappear out of the area. This is why the plan was submitted with a number of preconditions, including 1) full LENT The Lents Warande alternative was developed compensation for all farmers (compensation for leaving in self-organisation by the residents federation. The the area and compensation for the transformation federation developed the alternative Lentse Warande from an inner to an outer dike terrain as a result of plan coached by (the late) professor Van Ellen the measure), 2) the risk of flooding once in 25 years, (professor of hydraulic engineering at TU Delft). The and 3) a rapid and dynamic planning process so that river floodplain in the alternative plan was lowered the plan could be quickly developed and be properly so that houses could be spared. The river floodplain completed and implemented. The last item was to was excavated down to the level of the bottom of the avoid substantial levels of uncertainty over long periods River Waal. Between the channel and the River Waal for farmers in the future. The original plan was further a ‘longitudinal dam’ was placed along the river. detailled in collaboration with experts from government The Lentse Warande plan is an sophisticated departments and external consultants (including the alternative and could rely on support from the Habiforum Knowledge Network) in the areas of water majority of the town council of Nijmegen, which and spatial planning. could not easily be ignored by the steering committee. The province became the process supervisor An important comment made by the Nijmegen town ensuring that the experimental process ran smoothly. council stated that the plan does not take account The role of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public of the urban development programme (including Works and Water Management remained that of Waalsprong) of the municipal authority. However, supervisory agent and coordinator. The remaining pressure was also put on the official project group and role relationships between the province and the Dutch administrators by the Nijmegen town council in order Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water to give serious consideration to the Lentse Warande. It Management emerged in practice to be unclear, which was decided to give the residents’ organisation support led to a level of friction and extended discussions. with their continued development of the Lentse Tension remained within the top-down control Warande plan specifically by giving them details structure that is normal at the Dutch Ministry of about the urban development aspects. An ‘essential Transport, Public Works and Water Management, co-production’ between the societal groups and the while bottom-up control and self-organisation was government now came into being. The municipal coordinated under the supervision of the province authority of Nijmegen also set up an advisory group of North Brabant. The perseverance and flexibility in which representatives of the area players could of the province (particularly by executive members participate. Although the residents hesitated to Boelhouwer and later Verheijen) as well as a number participate, mainly because the recommendations were of key figures (specifically: Van Rooy van Habiforum) not binding, they nonetheless decided to take part in meant that the process was able to continue.

WATER GOVERNANCE – 02/2013 – 35 SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ROOM FOR THE RIVER

initial version of the PKB Room for the River What was the ultimate effect appeared, the Lent dike relocation was adopted as of self-organisation? a short-term measure. The secretary of state also stated indirectly that he was for the dike relocation. A final decision was not yet taken however, because LENT Both plans, the dike relocation and the Lentse the PKB public consultation had to take place first. Warande, were included in the Environmental The public consultation took place in 2005 and 532 Assessment procedure. The conclusion was that reactions were received for the Dike Relocation Lent. both plans were of equal value. They both satisfied Intensive consultations took place between the regional the standards required for the Room for the River administrative parties, the residents of Lent and the programme and the effects of the measures were Lower House. After lengthy debates, the Lower House comparable. Based on this conclusion, a new discussion voted nevertheless on 7 July 2006 for the short-term arose about both plans. The eventual decision would be dike relocation as proposed in the PKB Room for taken by the ministry of Transport, Public Works and the River. Now that the decision had been taken, the Water Management, but here the parties could exercise residents had now become battle-weary and gave up influence because the steering group had to make its pushing for their alternative. preference known to the ministry. The steering group had two recommendations within the framework of the OVERDIEPSE POLDER Representatives of the Overdiepse option that they had to choose. First of all the advisory Polder residents’ association were frequently involved group made the Lentse Warande its preference. It in the project group that was working on further was of the opinion that this plan had sufficient effect elaboration of the ‘terp’ plan. There was a lot of on the water levels generated and simultaneously discussion about the location, the design and the limited the consequences for the area. The second number of ‘terps’ in the area. There was also a lot of recommendation came from the project group. With discussion about land values and the corresponding this recommendation the preference was for relocating compensation for damage caused by flooding and for the dikes, because this plan was best able to meet the farmers who would have to leave the area because requirements for water safety over the longer term. no ‘terps’ were available for them. Eventually things By the end of 2004 there were two recommendations were worked out and a ‘terps plan’ was drawn up for and it was up to the steering committee to make the implementation (see illustration 2). final decision. The choice between dike relocation and The ‘terps plan’ was drawn up mainly because the Lentse Warande was also a sensitive issue in the residents were united and they tranformed the initiative steering committee. Both the province and the water into a plan. Supported by the province and by external board preferred dike relocation, because it met the experts, the plan was worked out so that it was feasible standards over the long term. The region adopted a and could be implemented. The plan proposed a neutral position, this applied also to the municipality of water level reduction of 27 centimetres. Although the Nijmegen. The latter found itself caught in a dilemma. construction of the ‘terps’ did not contribute directly During the negotiations over the plans the municipality to the aims of water safety, it did ensure societal had achieved quite a lot, including retaining the acceptance of the measure. planned new housing, money for a second bridge and Some of the ‘terps’ have already been constructed generous compensation levels. With this background and some are even inhabited. Currently the last of and with the agreements that had been made, the the residents are leaving. They talk about ‘leavers’ (9) council wanted to go with the dike relocation option. and ‘stayers’ (8). The community has fallen apart and However, the town council was of the opinion that the there are clear winners and losers among the farmers. consequences for the residents must be kept as limited Some farmers were able to manifest themselves better as possible. At the beginning of 2005 the municipal than others in the mirror project. This led to a lot council voted unanimously against dike relocation and of disappointment for the farmers concerned. Some for the Lentse Warande. This meant in the steering farmers took legal action against the plans. On 21 April group that the Nijmegen municipal authority took a 2010 the Council of State declared their objections to neutral position and would settle for the option chosen be unfounded. From that moment on it was possible to by the secretary of state. Of the four parties in the implement the ‘terps plan’. steering group, two were neutral and two were for dike relocation, resulting in the official recommendation given by the steering group to the ministry stating a Conclusions & reflection: preference for the dike relocation option. With this learning lessons for self-organisation decision the recommendation given by the steering and water governance group was pushed to one side, much to the indignation Both projects displayed similarities and differences of the group members. that will now be discussed in this closing section. The The discussion started at central government level initial similarity is that both projects started where in 2005. An active lobby was started in both Houses the government had plans for the area that would of Parliament mainly by the residents. When the not be supported in the area itself. In the case of the

36 – WATER GOVERNANCE – 02/2013 SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ROOM FOR THE RIVER

Overdiepse Polder river widening Project plan Pond Washlands Intermediate dike Veerweg / War monument

Water management and No measures taken here Lower existing dike Monument retained ecological function (subject to widening the Foot/cycle path over the dam Existing dike around watercourse at the discharge crown (polder walk/trip) monument retained sluice Special panorama/info point Retain ash tree lane Move Veerlaan west

Pumping station Plan boundary

Ferry house Mounds New dike

Recreation area & yacht marina. Series of ‘terps’. Flowing route (no sharp bends Fitting into ecological zone. Equal distance between each one. or piers). Sufficient distance to farm on a ‘terp’. Flowing curve. Sufficient distance to the Oude Sturdy landscaping (plants, shrubs, Maasje river for future dike trees). reinforcement or ecological Dussensche Gantel Urban development & architectural zoning. coherence with buildings. Flower meadow on levee between watercourse and road towards old water pumping station. Water management Footpath from dike to dike. Ecological zone Info point near pumping station. along Oude Maasje Replace existing pumping station. Nature compensation & widening Construct discharge sluice. Water existing EVZ. Excavate pond. Washlands Retain old embankment as far as Retain existing structure in Water retaining structure possible (pathway). general. Recreation Space for future dike reinforcement. Ecological riverbank Space for collecting water. Agriculture and water collection ‘Terp’ [mound or knoll]

Illustration 2. Terps plan11

Dike Relocation Lent project, the Brokx plan was making process through taking legal steps. In the the first version of the dike relocation option and second situation the citizens decided to develop their required approximately 50 houses to be demolished. own plans, because they realised that opposition only The local residents strongly resisted this and organised delayed the process, but didn’t lead to its cancellation. opposition. The residents in the Overdiepse Polder case With the Lent case it was the Lentse Warande, and were also not happy with government’s plans, because with the Overdiepse Polder case it was the ‘terps plan’ they didn’t trust the government to take their interests that was drawn up on the initiative of the residents. properly into consideration when drawing them up. The third similarity concerns the initial reaction of The second similarity concerns the reaction to the government, which was identical in each case: initially governments’ plans and initially a defensive strategy they didn’t know how to deal with the initiative shown was drawn up aimed at causing delays in the decision- by the residents. It took quite a while before they took

WATER GOVERNANCE – 02/2013 – 37 SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ROOM FOR THE RIVER

Illustration 3. International interest in the Overdiepse Polder project it seriously. With the Overdiepse Polder project, the water experts from the province, the water board resident’s initiative was taken seriously at an earlier and external consultants (specifically Habiforum) stage than it was with the Dike Relocation Lent project. together with the area players, and would continue to However, both projects had interesting points and develop the ‘terps plan’ thereby making it feasible and differences that explain why societal self-organisation workable. in the Overdiepse Polder case did have a positive Regarding the Dike Relocation Lent project, it was effect in contrast to the Dike Relocation Lent project. only because of strong pressure from the Nijmegen The first major difference between the projects was town council that the Lents Warande resident’s that the province (North Brabant) quickly embraced initiative was taken seriously. Heavy lobbying by the the ‘terps plan’ and insisted on supporting it from the resident’s federation ensured that the council in turn position of having a vision of the area and a strategy. put the pressure on alderman Depla who was soon Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and forced to consider the Lentse Warande and include it Water Management gave the province the scope to in the environmental impact assessment. The officials carry out the project management, but still felt that it from the municipality modified a few necessary items was ultimately responsible and crept into the role of and aspects of the alternative plan in order that it could supervisor. The new role relationship caused a period play a comprehensive role in the assessment. of groping around and tension between the bottom-up This indicated a second major difference between process initiated by the province, and the traditional both projects. With Overdiepse Polder the resident’s top-down control implemented by the Dutch Ministry initiative was acted upon and developed even further of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. in the project group that consisted of a wide collection When combined with the ‘not-invented-here’ attitude of government professionals and local experts from the of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works area – the initiative received a place in a co-creative and Water Management, it was responsible for the process. The Lent resident’s initiative also made an problems experienced at start-up. Nonetheless, the impact, but this didn’t happen within co-production, province was able to get the upper hand and designed but by way of official professionals who worked in an interactive process in which the initial ‘terps plan’ relative isolation from the societal players. No co- would be taken further in a project group where creative process was started. Although an advisory

38 – WATER GOVERNANCE – 02/2013 SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ROOM FOR THE RIVER

group was set up in which representatives of the resident’s group had places, this was principally 1 Edelenbos, J., D. Roth and M. Winnubst (2012). Dealing intended to make recommendations for further with uncertainties in the Dutch Room for the River development and dealings with the plans. There programme: a comparison between the Overdiep Polder and Noordwaard, in: Warner, J. A. van Buuren and J. Edelenbos isn’t voting of any substance in the group. The (eds.), Making space for the river. Governance experiences recommendations given by this group for continuing with multifunctional river flood management in the US and with the Lentse Warande didn’t receive sufficient Europe, London: IWA Publishing, pp. 51-62; support in the steering committee and so it was Winnubst, M. (2011), Turbulent Waters, Amersfoort: decided to proceed with the dike relocation option, dissertation. because this guaranteed the highest water level 2 Buuren, van, M.W., J. Edelenbos en E.H. Klijn (2010), reduction in the future (2030). In the short-term, Gebiedsontwikkeling in woeling water. Over water governance bewegend 2015, both alternatives were considered to be equal. tussen adaptief waterbeheer en ruimtelijke besluitvorming, Den Haag: The third major difference between the processes Boom/Lemma. of self-organisation came from the specific 3 Edelenbos, J., I. van Meerkerk en Y. Batenburg, preconditions and administrative context in which Burgerinitiatief en de Veerkracht van both projects were developed. With the Dike Instituties, in: Bestuurskunde, 2009, nr.1.pp.81-91. Relocation Lent project, the timing of the citizen’s 4 Edelenbos, J. Proces in vorm: procesbegeleiding van interactieve initiative was poor. The alternative only came to beleidsvorming over lokale ruimtelijke projecten, Lemma, Utrecht, the fore after various administrative agreements 2000. concerning dike relocation had been agreed between 5 Edelenbos, J., I. van Meerkerk en Y. Batenburg, the governmental departments involved (province, Burgerinitiatief Vlaardingen en de Veerkracht van central government and municipal authority). Instituties, in: Bestuurskunde, 2009, nr.1.pp.81-91. Their preparatory survey took place in a relatively 6 Warner, J. A. van Buuren and J. Edelenbos (2012, eds.), closed circle and was consolidated into a number Making space for the river. Governance experiences with multifunctional of administrative agreements. It was specifically the river flood management in the US and Europe, London: IWA agreement in which the dike relocation (preferred by Publishing. the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and 7 Edelenbos, J., I. van Meerkerk en Y. Batenburg, Water Management) and the second bridge over the Burgerinitiatief Vlaardingen en de Veerkracht van River Waal (preferred by the Nijmegen municipality) Instituties, in: Bestuurskunde, 2009, nr.1.pp.81-91. was banded about and eventually finalised that 8 Winnubst, M. (2011), Turbulent Waters, Amersfoort: proved to be a limiting factor for making further dissertation. 9 Rijkswaterstaat. (2007). Maatregel DijkterugleggingLent. Taken developments with the Lentse Warande alternative. from www.rijkswaterstaat.nl. Every time the alternative plan was brought up, 10 Van Rooy, P., A. van Luin and E. Dil (2006). Nederland central government threatened to cancel the financing Boven Water. Praktijkboek Gebiedsontwikkeling. Gouda: of the second bridge if the municipal authority did Habiforum, Nirov, VROM. not agree with the dike relocation option. These 11 Provincie Brabant (2011), Projectplan Rivierverruiming unfavourable starting conditions ensured specifically Overtypes Polder, ontleend aan http://www.brabant.nl/ that the resident’s alternative plan would not see the dossiers/dossiers-op-thema/water/bescherming-tegen- light of day. water/rivierverruiming-overdiepse-polder.aspx The starting conditions for the Overdiepse Polder project were better and the timing was better, because no strict administrative preconditions had been created or agreements made. This ‘lapse’ worked positively and ensured that there was more room ENGLISH SUMMARY for the citizen’s initiative to grow and be included in a process of co-creation, ultimately leading to This article deals with civic engagement in two Room for the plan implementation. The role of the province was River projects (Overdiepse Polder and Lent) from a societal important for keeping the resident’s alternative alive. self-organisation perspective. Today, citizens show more self- This is in contrast to the Lent case where the officials organising capabilities by drafting their own plans alongside didn’t bother at all about the initiative from the those of (local, regional and national) governments. Citizens residents. use all kind of resources (e.g. knowledge, connections, time) to mobilise self-organising capacity. However, this article argues Timing, support from the administrative key figures that societal self-organisation in the Overdiepse Polder case has and inclusion of the alternative plan in a concerted paid off, while in Lent it has been left stranded. With cross-case process of co-creation are important conditions analysis it becomes clear that good timing, the organisation for self-organisation before water governance and of co-creation between citizens and representatives from resident’s initiatives have any chance of success. Social governments, and the smart linking of self-organisation into innovation and societal self-organisation must be existing governmental institutions can be considered the three timed properly and linked into existing administrative most important factors in making societal self-organisation forces in order to obtain practical development. meaningful in the practice of water governance.

WATER GOVERNANCE – 02/2013 – 39